Broadening the Definition of "The Bottom Line"

I don’t like change. If you say you do, there is a good chance you are either a masochist, a consultant, or just plain lying. Sure, there are a lot of benefits to change—it can even be inspiring, but do you really seek it out? Or is it just that you are adept at responding to it? Love it or hate it there is no denying that change is disruptive, plain and simple. In business, you’re constantly faced with change - new markets, economic forces, staffing issues, software upgrades, the list goes on. The work of the 21st century business leader is to evaluate how to deal with this endless list of opportunities and challenges, and filter it through the “bottom-line” – financial measures that reflect the health of the organization.

Besides financial measures, what else should leaders take into account in making strategic decisions? How about “Trust Equity”, or how well you and your people operate transparently with each other.

Do you not say your most important assets are those you surround yourself with? Ideally, this core group of bright, articulate and entrepreneurial individuals operate as your eyes and ears, evaluating economic, market and technology changes.

Does it matter if your financials are solid but there’s tension across department? Should you care if your staff isn’t operating to their potential but you’re still making money or expenses are under control? How often do we honestly step back from the fires we are dealing with and ask the broader question “If we were a really solid team, how much more could we do?”

Face it. You really don’t know what’s going on. Your direct reports will do everything in their power to show how well and on target they are, while avoiding news that may concern or upset you. This should come as no surprise. It’s human nature to look out for ones security.

This is a core benefit of building trust equity. Trust is the means to an end, the most important end is knowing what’s going on around you. Although we often operate by the principle “No news is good news”, it’s “What you don’t know that will kill you!” Building trust allows you to manage down in a way that encourages people to uncover issues they don’t think you want to hear.

A Clash of Cultures

As we speak, technology is reinventing relationship. Instant messaging continues to find its way into the workplace, slowly replacing that outdated technology called “email”. It should be of no surprise why this is catching on, given IM is that perfect balance of achieving dialogue without having to deal with eye contact and other interpersonal annoyances that come with having to influence people sitting across a conference table. Discussion boards, blogs, social networks – the way we connect is changing faster than our ability to embrace any of these tools. And with a generation of up-and-coming leaders who grew up embracing electronic media, our views on how work gets done and the meaning of “relationship” is under attack.

We are living in a clash of cultures, those of us who have spent a lifetime developing face-to-face interpersonal skills, and the generation that is weaving emoticons (:-o zz) and instant messaging phrases (PCM or LOL) into our professional dialogue. How do we develop new definitions of relationship and trust that draws from our rich history of oral communication while taking into account the changing nature of written communication and how work gets done? Is this cultural dichotomy something we as seasoned leaders continue to resist or dismiss (“when I was young, we walked 12 miles to school and we liked it!”) or do we collectively learn how to be efficient and effective, while maintaining that personal connection with each other? If this isn’t a perfect storm for the quote by Alvin Toffler, I don’t know what is:

“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

At a deeper level, how does building trust fit into our 21st century organizations? Does it mean the same thing to future leaders of our institutions as it does to the generation who “walked the floors” and connected one-on-one with those doing the work?

These questions are at the heart of what we need to engage our current and future leaders in discussion around.

The Three Things

Around organizational objectives, we define too many goals. When we speak, we have too much content. In our business vision, there is too much we want changed. Take a step back and ask yourself “What are the three things _____ ?” (Fill in the blank)

• …I want to get done today • …our organization should be focusing on • …I want to communicate in this talk

This simple act will drive what’s most important to the surface. The rest is either a secondary concern or will get done without much thought.

Let’s hear from experts in this field, none other than Monty Python. In this scene from The Holy Grail, a monk is reading from a book of scripture:

“…First shall thou take out the holy pin. Then shall thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall the number thou shall count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shall thou not count, neither count now two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out!”

I couldn’t have said it any better.

Decision-Making and Leadership

A book that was recently introduced to me by a good friend has validated and deepened my view on leadership, how decisions get made and trust. “Why Great Leaders Don’t Take Yes For An Answer”, written by Professor Michael Roberto, speaks to the value of a decision-making process that focuses on “deciding how to decide” versus the purely efficient approach of finding the “right solution” to a problem. Focusing on the “decision-making process” has tremendous benefit around building trust in and across organizations. Why? Senior leaders rightfully see themselves as charged with making the right decisions for their organizations. They have a genetic disposition to seeing a problem and quickly identifying the solution. Isn’t this what we expect from those in charge? But what if being in charge is less about having the right answers and more about using the people around you to come up with the “best solution”? This is one of the premises of Michael Roberto’s book.

It makes perfect sense to solve a problem quickly when the issue is straightforward or lacks complexity. Asking for collaboration when there is no intention to consider alternatives is disingenuous and only serves to diminish trust.

However, there are many more decisions that would benefit from rigorous dialogue before coming to a decision. Cutting work force, expanding to different markets or generating new revenue streams are all examples of decisions that have many layers of complexity. In these cases, bringing the right people together having the right conversations increases the likelihood of a well thought out solution. And with the presence of honest dialogue, a higher level of trust can develop between parties.

If we find ways to encourage participation in problem solving, starting with “deciding how to decide”, our leaders and managers will be jumping out bed to get to work and participate in healthy debates. This is exciting work and gets people powerfully engaged. Not only will you get better results, but you’ll see trust in action.

You can also find Professor Michael Roberto’s blog at http://michael-roberto.blogspot.com/.

An Historical Perspective on Trust

A very interesting perspective on this topic was written by the London Professor Geoffrey Hosking. It's called: Why We Need a History of Trust. In it he speaks to trust in the context of “joint responsibility” going back to traditional Russian society. Households would collectively share the responsibility of taxes and providing recruits for the army. If one household was unable to carry their weight, another one would step up. As Professor Hosking explains “all members of a village community had an interest in ensuring every household enjoyed a basic level of subsistence, enough to pay its dues and bring up healthy young men”. This approach both served the rulers of the time and laid the groundwork for the concept of mutual aid in times of adversity.

Why care about this? Simple. Shared responsibility is how we take care of each other. No one group (family, community, society) forever enjoys continuous fortune without periodic adversity. It’s the act of providing help to others in those times of need that allow for mutual trust to develop. This applies to the world scale as well as how we approach getting work done from 9-5. We can learn a lot from bringing “collective responsibility” to the workplace.

I Trust You And Here’s A Carrot To Prove It!

It’s conventional wisdom that trust is the foundation of people working well together. Is there a formula to insure trust is present among leaders and the people who work for them? Or do we just get lucky with the right people having great camaraderie? One thing’s for sure. In business, we don’t just trust for trust sake. We give trust to those who earn it through productivity and results. And how do we demonstrate our trust or lack of trust of others. Simple – the carrot and the stick – rewarding those we trust and punishing those we don’t trust. But does it work?

An excellent read that addresses this question is the book Punished by Rewards -The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes by Alfie Kohn.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm

In it, Kohn suggests reward and punishment are two sides of the same coin, and only serve to manipulate people into actions, versus finding what it really takes to motivate and build trust. We’ve effectively learned better ways to control people while reinforcing this focus on rewards and punishments, and not on where it should be – the value of the work itself.

This is a great read for those looking to break out of management techniques that may work in the short-term, but don’t build respect and trust in the long-run.

Trust and Priorities

I don’t know about you, but I have a higher degree of trust for people and groups who have their priorities straight. In a recent organizational retreat I led, the President opened the session with a discussion around the difference between “priorities and noise”. “Noise” is all those tasks that need to get done, but don’t directly contribute to helping the organization get to a stronger place.

Even if your priorities and goals are lined up with Senior Management, there still is too much to do. The question you need to ask is, “Are we collectively spending our time doing the things that contribute directly to the health and well-being of the organization?” If the answer is, “Not sure”, then you’re not.

Consider asking the following question of your team, department, steering committee, Board of Directors, whatever the group: “What are our top three priorities?” Once you figure this out, the rest is just noise.

Trust and Leadership

When people ask me, “How can we build better leaders in our organization?” my first thought is: “Look in the mirror.” This is not a criticism but to start with what we have the most influence over – ourselves. There are many traits that make up great leadership, but the one that stands out the most for me is to lead by example.

Regardless of your political standing in an organization, people respect those who walk the talk. It’s not so easy though. If you want your people to trust each other, you need to ask “Am I demonstrating trusting my people?” You want a collaborative working environment? Ask yourself whether you are truly listening to others ideas or are you just paying lip service because you already know what you’re going to do.

There’s a place for authoritarian, strong leadership. Some of us just need to back off a little bit and watch those around us who want to make an impact.

Where Trust Begins

The more I work with organizations, the more I discover what it takes to be great.  A great organization is made up of exceptional individuals.  And individuals bring the following attribute to the table - trustworthiness.  Ask yourself this question.  "Am I trustworthy"?  Not, do I think people trust me but do I trust myself and my actions?  This question taps into something deeper, something we know when we see it but don't often talk about - personal integrity. 

Integrity and trustworthiness go hand-in-hand.  At one extreme there are those we collectively agree have little integrity (think Kenneth Lay from Enron) while many of us would agree that Mother Teresa had high integrity.  We trust people who we think serve the common good.  And then there is this huge middle ground of those some believe are trustworthy while others consider manipulative. (Think political figures or religious leaders - there's two groups where it's so dependent on your world view). 

Regardless, a great team, department, or organization starts with personal trustworthiness.  "Can I be trusted to do the right thing?" Everything builds on that.  Once you've decided on the answer, look around at those in your circle.  It should be no surprise who you find are attracted to you.

BPMA Write-up

I spoke at the Boston Product Management Association meeting when this note popped up in my Google alerts: BPMA Meeting Roundup for April-June. The central idea of the talk is pretty simple: miscommunication untreated fosters mistrust. I think of it as an illness; one that starts as a cold, but transforms over time into a cancer. It's much easier to treat when addressed quickly and openly.

These meetings are usually stocked with great speakers. I'm thrilled to be included in this list. If you're a BPMA member, make sure to look for the presentation itself in the discussion forums on the BPMA website. Next time, I'll make sure the notification is up before I actually do the talk!

Welcome to The Trust Blog

As a function of the teibelinc.com redesign, I struggled mightily with a few things.

1. How to characterize change as both a constant struggle to overcome organizational adversity, and at the same time to communicate that I am a great optimist and advocate that such obstacles can be overcome.
2. How to show that I believe strongly that the best change projects are not always just about incorporating the new, but putting the same old pieces of the organization together in new, innovative ways.
3. Should I put a blog on the site?

I think we answered the first two questions. The third will have to come in partnership with you. 

I realized that so much of what I do, so many of the stories of change that I come across each day, highlight the companies that are "doing things right" now. They've made a commitment to how they focus their people, process, and technology initiatives, and through wonderful feats of ingenuity they have managed great change while reducing the pain that can come with it. In large part, they have done so by increasing the levels of trust and communication between teams, across layers of management, and have delivered results thanks to their efforts.

These are stories that more people, more teams, and more businesses need to hear. 

And so, I welcome you to The Trust Blog. I'll be posting my stories of trust, teams, and change, and posting links I believe are of value in your change initiatives. In return, I hope you'll find this a space where you can share your own stories and interact with me, and your peers, through insightful and observant comments and trackbacks.

Thank you for your patience through our redesign efforts, and thanks in advance for your participation on the site. I look forward to hearing your stories of change management success!